China Employment Law Update - June 2017

In This Issue: Judicial Interpretation Clarifies Issues Concerning Personal Data Criminal Cases Beijing High Court Opinion Makes Redundancies in Beijing Much More Difficult New Guideline Imposes Job Restrictions on Former Civil Servants China and Spain Sign Social Security Totalization Treaty State Administration of Work Safety Highlights Employer Obligations in High Temperature Weather Government Issues New Labor Arbitration Rules Shanghai Pudong Court Issues White Paper on Employment Dispute in 2016 Employee Termination for Stealing Colleague’s Flower Upheld by Cour

Virginia Law: It’s Online, But Should You Use It?

A judge asks you to present her with a copy of the Virginia Code section you are referencing in court, or she asks you to provide a copy of the Supreme Court of Virginia opinion you cited. You used Virginia state government websites to find both the code section and the court opinion. This is easy, right? You give her the copy of what you found online. But could there be a problem? Is the court opinion that you retrieved from the court website considered an official version of the court opinion? Has the Virginia Code section that you provided been authenticated to establish its legitimacy? Do these issues matter, and do they have any practical effect on your work as an attorney

Supreme Court Opinion Contradicting the Scintilla Rule

The opinion of the supreme court in Cleveland Railway Co. v. Kukucz\u27 cannot logically co-exist with the scintilla rule and, therefore, imperatively requires a re-examination of that trouble- some doctrine and a deliberate choice between it and the case referred to. The scintilla rule should be abandoned

The Latest Chapter in the Baur Saga

The Iowa Supreme Court case of Baur v. Baur Farms, Inc.,1 which was reversed and remanded to the District Court “for further proceedings consistent with [the Supreme Court] opinion,” has produced yet another opinion,2 which is far from “consistent with [the Supreme Court ] opinion.”3 The long saga of the Baur disputes is, very likely, far from over. The Iowa Supreme Court decision had held that “. . . majority shareholders act oppressively when, having the corporate financial resources to do so, they fail to satisfy the reasonable expectations of a minority shareholder by paying no return on shareholder equity while declining the minority shareholder’s repeated offers to sell shares for fair value.”4 The recently released District Court opinion paid little heed to the holding of the Supreme Court and concluded “. . . because his demands have exceeded the fair value of his equity interest, Jack [the plaintiff] has failed to meet his burden to prove oppression by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Annual Survey of Virginia Law: Wills, Trusts, and Estates

The 1994 Session of the General Assembly enacted legislation dealing with wills, trusts, and estates that added, amended, or repealed a number of sections of the Code of Virginia (the Code). In addition to this legislation, there were six Supreme Court of Virginia opinions, one federal district court opinion, one Virginia Circuit Court opinion, and one Virginia Attorney General\u27s opinion in the year ending June 1, 1994 that involved issues of interest to both the general practitioner and the specialist in wills, trusts, and estates. This article analyzes each of these legislative and judicial developments